Bride Killed in Helicopter Crash

[Flying Binghi]

In flight film of crash...

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=248_1499297836


Edit to add: As the in-flight film had been posted I thought there were a final accident report on this incident. Apparently not. From the LiveLeak link here is what is claimed to be the background of the flight film...

Translated:
The small camera that was inside the helicopter that carried the bride Rosemeire Nascimento Silva, 32, for her wedding in São Lourenço da Serra,
in Greater São Paulo, was found in the woods only four days after the fall by a Brother of the bride. He was looking for personal belongings of
Rosemeire and the alliance of their other brother, Silvano Nascimento da Silva, who accompanied the bride on the flight. In addition to the two,
the pilot and a photographer were killed. It was this camera that recorded the entire route - from takeoff in the hangar of the company owner of
the aircraft, HCS Táxi Aéreo, in Osasco, also in the metropolitan region of São Paulo, until the fall. The small camera was taken by photographer
Nayla Cristina Neves Lousada, who was also on the plane, and had been hired by Rosemeire to register the celebration.
The videos in this report contain excerpts from the accident. ATTENTION: the images are strong.
Nayla was seated next to the pilot of the Robinson 44 helicopter, prefix PR-TUN , and fixed, during the flight of just over 25 minutes, the camera
in front of her, facing the bride and her brother. They were both sitting in the back seats of the helicopter. Nayla was six months pregnant and had
two daughters, too. In the final 5 minutes of flight, when pilot Peterson Pinheiro begins to have difficulties controlling the aircraft, performing maneuvers,
Nayla frequently turns the equipment, showing the navigation panel. The images also depict the scenario of strong mist and little visibility of the external environment.

When Nayla's camera was found, with at least five videos and 331 photos of the entire flight, the Civil Police, the Institute of Criminology of the Secretariat
of Security of São Paulo and Cenipa had already done an on-the-spot investigation and had not found the The appliance.
The content was delivered in full to the Civil Police and to the Aeronautics, which are still carrying out expertise in the material. The São Lourenço Police
Station has an investigation into the case still in progress, which establishes guilty homicide and runs under the secrecy of Justice.

The images captured by the camera that the photographer Nayla carried will help pinpoint causes of the tragedy. At the request of the G1 , Aeronautical
Reserve Colonel Luís Claudio Lupoli, who acted as a researcher at the Center for Research and Prevention of Aeronautical Accidents (Cenipa), analyzed the
video and pointed out some possible pilot errors in the aircraft's handling due to apparent conflict Of use of control of flight of way of visual and also
by instruments. After analyzing the images, Colonel Lupoli understands that it is possible that the pilot did not have knowledge to operate the helicopter,
a Robinson R44 Raven II, prefix PR-TUN, under instrument conditions, as it makes sudden movements to try to stabilize the aircraft.
The crashed aircraft could only be used, according to its official record, for operations under visual conditions, where the pilot uses visual references of
soil, horizon and time, not just instruments on board.






.

[ShyTorque]

What a tragic and stupid, unnecessary waste of life on what should have been the happiest day.

[heli kiwi]

Bloody hell I'd be closing my eyes as well.

IFR?

[helimutt]

I have to say that had me literally shaking, and my heart pounding!!!!! Dear me. As soon as i saw his view outside you just knew it was going to end badly. :sad:

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I have always hated flying weddings due to the pressure, interfering relatives, photographers etc. I'd love to know where this was and what the forecast was. The pilot got airborne for some reason, when common sense said no. What bloody tragic waste.


SND

[Max Contingency]

You see footage like this and it helps you to understand why our industry is so heavily regulated.

[Bell_ringer]

You see footage like this and it helps you to understand why our industry is so heavily regulated.

Just a little less regulated in Brazil, it seems..

[flopter]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2335051/bride-killed-helicopter-crash-big-wedding-entrance-surprise-groom-goes-wrong/ :(

[212man]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2335051/bride-killed-helicopter-crash-big-wedding-entrance-surprise-groom-goes-wrong/ :(

Complete with random photo of a burning helicopter!

[flopter]

Complete with random photo of a burning helicopter! yep... great job to the press :* :rolleyes:

[mickjoebill]

Fuel cell apparently did its job, but sadly to no avail in this instance.

The notion that onboard video will deter pilots from flying irresponsibly or illegally isn't borne out in this flight.

Mjb

[griffothefog]

Three shiny gold bars... priceless 😢

[Fonsini]

I would imagine that the pilot felt the need to press on in bad weather as he had to deliver the bride to the ceremony, it appears that he was watching the GPS and "flying the dot" to his desired location, a football field, when he lost control and hit the trees. Does anyone know what that warning tone means in a Raven II ?

[Bell_ringer]

That's the low RPM buzzer

[SASless]

You see footage like this and it helps you to understand why our industry is so heavily regulated.


The Fallacy is Judgement cannot be regulated.

[Akrapovic]

it appears that he was watching the GPS and "flying the dot" to his desired location, a football field, when he lost control and hit the trees.

You can tell that from a shaky GoPro vid that barely features the instruments??

[Hedski]

Brazil, AGAIN!!!!!

[rotornut]

Having been in a 206 crash and walking away from it I never take anything for granted anymore.

[Hughesy]

Poor bugger had plenty of chances to lower the lever, get back into VMC and turn around.
Commercial pressure/getthereitis on a possible low time guy.

[Fonsini]

You can tell that from a shaky GoPro vid that barely features the instruments??

His passenger referred to him using it (in Portuguese), he appeared to be watching it intently, and he found his desired destination (a football field) in IMC conditions.

[noflynomore]

Poor bugger had plenty of chances to lower the lever, get back into VMC and turn around.

I don't think we know what conditions the "poor bugger" aka stupid arse launched into so that may have been true in earlier stages of the flight but from what we saw on the video I don't think there was any VMC below. Edit... Thanks BR, I see now from the longer vid that launch was happy and in good conditions but the agitation of the pax is very high indeed as the clag develps. I reckon he was not much above treetop height all the way with just the barest of glimpses of the ground very close below. There was barely any delay between the horn and the first impact - and no clear air seen at all.
Look too at the body language of the two in the back. They are both highly agitated and peering intently steeply downwards, the fella then looks intently forwards too as though looking for something to see but both are clearly very uncomfortable. The helo makes a turn (rotor clatter increases) and he flattens himself ahainst the bulkhead looking downright scared, this is clearly a white-knuckle ride. The photog pulls a big round-eye look before smiling a bit unconvincingly too.
On full screen at slow speed (first video) from 1:35 the fella in the back flattens against the bulkhead - something has scared him again - the camera swings onto the panel showing a very steep turn right (45' bank or so) with a lot of nose down, pilot rolls level but ignores the pitch which wavers and gets to maybe 15, 20' nose down before he snatches a recovery which rapidly develops into a 60'left climbing turn, then nothing but blue on the AI, horn, pilot falls forward, (probably inverted by then) impact.

That video should be shown to every helo student to illustrate why you don't fly unauthorised IMC. Gruesome stuff.

[Bell_ringer]

I don't think we know what conditions the "poor bugger" aka stupid arse launched into

If you look at the longer video on live leaks you can see they lifted in good conditions and it deteriorated enroute.
There were plenty of opportunities to turnaround before he completely ran out of options.

[Hughesy]

Yeah in the start you could see the ground quite often, enough im sure to dump the lever and go clear.

[rotorspeed]

Far from being a "poor bugger" this pilot was being absolutely moronic. Murderously so, frankly. He was hand flying an unstabilised machine in IMC at just over tree top height. There was absolutely no excuse - he took off in clear VMC weather and pressed on with the weather progressively deteriorating until he was in pretty much solid IMC. Others might know better, but it seems perhaps that the final LOC came when he lost what stability he had trying as he slowed to find/descend/land at his site. But clearly it was an accident waiting to happen if ever we saw one. All the worse because his actions increasingly terrified his passengers on what was to have been one of the best days of their lives.

I've long thought obtaining a pilot's licence should include some kind of test or qualifications to demonstrate reasonable intelligence - which was clearly lacking here. No one would expect to have a brain surgeon operate on them without having previously demonstrated a high level of intelligence and a pilot can kill his customers as easily. When conditions get different and challenging, it is the intelligence to deal with them sensibly (as well as training and experience of course) that often determines whether the result is a fatal accident or not.

[heliski22]

Sickening...

[Hughesy]

What I mean by "poor bugger" is he got himself into a situation that would have been terrifying.
IT can happen to anyone of us, and if you say it can't then your bull****ting yourself, or have never worked in an area where the weather can change in a blink of an eye. It has and will catch even the most cautious, intelligent and experienced pilots out.
It can happen with client pressure, personal pressure.
There has been a lot of inadvertent IMC accidents.

We don't know the whole story, just the end.
The weather at departure and destination could have been perfectly fine. Enroute he encountered some poor weather, with client pressure to get there " lets go a little bit further", its ok so far just a bit worse then I was expecting "I really should back but the weather is meant to be good at site"
Little bit further and boom, IMC. Freaking out he may have got himself completely in cloud and before he knew it he was completely stuffed. The way he was flying his gps he was doing the best he could. Given the dire situation.

These are my thoughts only.

He may have had tons experience, he may have been a low time guy.
Its a lesson for everyone here, low time and high time. if you VFR stay away from cloud. Leave the IMC flying to the IFR pilots.
It much nicer enjoying the scenery then white.

The poor bugger, and I use that term cos inside he would have been panicking.

Worst video i have seen, as above I agree. Sickening.

[Cirrussy]

Bloody hell...

[griffothefog]

Classic crm lecture for Randy Mains...
I'll guess less than 500 hrs and no IR, so sad...

[Hot_LZ]

Regardless of his flight experience or IR qualifications, IMC and unstabilised Helicopters do not mix.

LZ

[noflynomore]

But no N Sea pilot, or any even half competent new PPL would slow to a zero-airspeed hover on instruments, would they? No wonder he lost it. This is straight out of the "But why can't you just hover and land when the weather gets bad?" question we've all been asked by members of the public, 'cept this time it was a "pilot" who actually dunnit. It will be interesting to see his qualifications and those of the charterer.
No way was this "inadvertent" IMC, we saw it get worse and worse and he didn't turn back. This was terminal pressonitis that even his pax could see was bloody dangerous.

[aa777888]

I don't think we know what conditions the "poor bugger" aka stupid arse launched into so that may have been true in earlier stages of the flight but from what we saw on the video I don't think there was any VMC below. Edit... Thanks BR, I see now from the longer vid that launch was happy and in good conditions but the agitation of the pax is very high indeed as the clag develps. I reckon he was not much above treetop height all the way with just the barest of glimpses of the ground very close below. There was barely any delay between the horn and the first impact - and no clear air seen at all.
Look too at the body language of the two in the back. They are both highly agitated and peering intently steeply downwards, the fella then looks intently forwards too as though looking for something to see but both are clearly very uncomfortable. The helo makes a turn (rotor clatter increases) and he flattens himself ahainst the bulkhead looking downright scared, this is clearly a white-knuckle ride. The photog pulls a big round-eye look before smiling a bit unconvincingly too.
On full screen at slow speed (first video) from 1:35 the fella in the back flattens against the bulkhead - something has scared him again - the camera swings onto the panel showing a very steep turn right (45' bank or so) with a lot of nose down, pilot rolls level but ignores the pitch which wavers and gets to maybe 15, 20' nose down before he snatches a recovery which rapidly develops into a 60'left climbing turn, then nothing but blue on the AI, horn, pilot falls forward, (probably inverted by then) impact.

That video should be shown to every helo student to illustrate why you don't fly unauthorised IMC. Gruesome stuff.

Holy :eek:

On the short video, at 0:40, it looks like 90KN, max. MP, going up at 1000FPM. Then between 0:40 and 1:40 it looks to be a roller coaster ride. When the panel is next visible at 1:40 now it looks like 0KN, 22" MP, VSI +1000FPM?, AH all over the place.

Gruesome stuff, indeed.

[Flying Bull]

Regardless of his flight experience or IR qualifications, IMC and unstabilised Helicopters do not mix.

LZ
Hmm, just help me out, where does a Bo105 has a stabilisation?
Can't remeber one- only a trimming system.
But I got my IFR rating on BO105.
It was work - hard work in cumulus, but it worked.
And I know an operator, who had his pilots doing approaches (saw it only in the SIM), AP and SAS off in an EC155 - "cause they need to be able, in case both systems quit.... "
IFR is easier with a stabilised helicopter- but what really counts is your scan, trust in the instruments, early corrections, so they stay smal and you don't have to move your controls to much....

[palacio802]

But still... they prefer fresh pilots to pilots with 2000 flight hours in AS332 like me. Yeah, I know, I have NOT the R-44 type rating!!!

[Washeduprotorgypsy]

Low time or forged high time most assuredly. Just from the simple fact that he blew so many chances to reacquire references. Plus the fact that you don't fly like that for long before Darwinism catches up. An anxiety/machismo driven nightmare.

It's fun to call the guy a moron and say I would never fly in those conditions, but as mentioned earlier you fly for long enough you're going to get caught out. It would be nice to think the guy could of been mentored into the "weather, appropriate speed, hoge power, fuel, daylight , landing spots available" game but chances are his training consisted of a check mark on a training checklist. "You fly into imc you pull a 180 duh! And don't fly in cloud or below a mile viz." Like it's that easy. Just a vertical curtain you fly into and out of.

This case makes me think of kinetic and potential energy as important decision tools in your imc bag of tricks. After immediately going imc he had the chance to either slow up and descend gently , yes possibly into the trees, to become a tangled mess. Or climb for the heavens to honor the stiff wing gold bars on his epaulettes gaining time and altitude and like pissing your pants a sense of relief. Then having to convert all that altitude into airspeed (both vertical and horizontal ) only to have to figure where the ground could possibly be and which way is up all over again if god doesn't part the skies for you. The higher energy involved guaranteeing a smoking hole over the tangled mess.

Please do have a plan and stick to it.

[EESDL]

Just tragic, very tragic

[megan]

Just tragic, very tragicA lot of dice rolling goes on.

https://video.buffer.com/v/5936153c7a4e445f53559b9c?utm_content=buffer30119&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer

ZBE3B1DQzRE

And who said you can't do IMC in a R-44 - he later killed himself and two pax doing just this in a R-66.

YnfQphBwDH0

[Flying Bull]

Hand flying an EC155 in IMC (with AP out and/or SAS out) is a whole lot easier than an R44. The R44 is incredibly unstable in comparison.

I guess, you have no experience flying an EC 155 AP AND SAS off - do you?

It's covered in Part 3 - Emergencies - with a run on landing recommended, cause hovering might not be possible.....
Thats incredobly more stable than an R44? I doubt it.....
Nearly did a barrel roll the first time the instructor cut off both systems.... "F..... twitchy" and nothing to compare with any other helicopter I have flown (without stabilising by design - or switched off)

[[email protected]]

Is the 155 significantly different to the 365? The 365 is very manageable AP out - far better than a Gazelle.

[palacio802]

Many people commenting here... and many missing the point.

The problem is not in the helicopter but in the pilot.

I don't know if the R44 is legaly certified for IFR, but anyway an IFR RATED pilot can fly safely (legally or not) any helicopter in foggy weather if it is equipped with attitude indicator, altimeter, variometer, anemometer and compass. Theoretically you should automatically change to IFR rules but even if you still consider yourself in VFR (which is cuestionable, because you are not relying on your eyes to guide the flight) you need the help of the "five basics". If you have not experience with instrumental flight and you get caught in an IMC situation and you fail in an inmediate return to VMC, you are almost done, no matter how "stable" your helicopter is.

[OvertHawk]

As regards the 155

AP and SAS out - in VMC it's very manageable indeed including hovering and landing. I've practiced it on many occasions. (Yes I know what the checklist says about a running landing but it's simply not necessary).

In IMC it's certainly harder work (I've only done it simulated in the helicopter as I'm not foolhardy enough to pickle out the AP and SAS in IMC). SAS only is very manageable with sole reference to instruments as long as you keep your scan going. SAS out is effing hard work but it's manageable at the correct speed.

The Simulator - It's a bag of weasels in comparison to the actual helicopter. AP and SAS out in IMC is a b!tch and in no way representative of how the helicopter handles. (Having said that I can usually survive it despite the best endeavours of the Sim driver).

As for the accident we're talking about...

I don't subscribe to the suggestion that "This kind of thing can happen to anyone"

This kind of thing can only happen to someone who flies beyond their own and their aircraft's limits. Yes we can all end up in circumstances where we are under pressure but that's when the Professional bit of you has to stand up and say "No".

No doubt there will be those who will pounce on me and start with the "You've clearly never been in that kind of situation yourself"... No I have not because I've said "No" lot's of times. I've been placed in horribly pressured situations with red faced passengers screaming at me and poking me from the cabin but I still say "no". I've also got myself into crappy weather and turned around later than I might have done but I've never boxed myself into a situation where I was committed to IMC in an aircraft that could not do it.

This video needs to be shown to all pilots, especially those of VFR only machines and those without instrument ratings.

There also needs to be an acceptance by our industry that this kind of cr@p just is not acceptable. The cowboys that do this should be sacked rather than congratulated for getting the job done.

I remember turing back in a two crew IFR rated machine and passing a single pilot public transport R44 (with a non IFR pilot) with three pax going the way I had just abandoned. I mentioned it to his Chief Pilot a few days later - Not interested. I mentioned it to a CAA flt Ops inspector - Not interested.

:ugh:

[Two's in]

I don't subscribe to the suggestion that "This kind of thing can happen to anyone"

You are absolutely correct OH. There might (on rare occasions) be a reasonable case for "inadvertent" IMC at night - but then again it shows your Met appreciation was fundamentally flawed. In daylight it is not inadvertent, it is deliberate. You make a conscious decision to continue the flight vector and enter cloud or fog. Most people assume they will pop right out of the other side, or it will lift up, or you will get a hole, or some other act of God that makes it a logical decision.

This happens far too frequently, and it's not limited to low-time pilots either, there are plenty of examples of experienced pilots who surely knew better ending up as another accident statistic. Clearly training is not the sole answer, there is just some odd facet of human risk-taking and failure to understand consequences of poor decision making that ensures accidents like this will keep happening.

[aa777888]

I don't think an IR won't really help in an unstabilised R44

Put most north sea pilots into sudden IMC in an R44 and see what results you get.
Low time Robbie guy here. If you haven't tried it, it's not nearly as difficult as you think. For a commercial rating you need 5 hours under the hood or in an approved simulator. I did over half my time in an R44, at night just to minimize potential external cues. While more difficult than in a fixed wing, I did not by any means find it impossible, and was able to fly around reasonably well at the direction of my instructor, even shooting a couple of ersatz approaches (not ILS).

Also, I would agree, the R44 simulator that was available for the remaining time is, in comparison to the actual aircraft, "a bag of weasels" :) Much more difficult to fly than the real thing.

Note that none of this means that I ever intend to fly into IMC!

[[email protected]]

aa777888 - You are making a classic mistake in assuming that simulated IMC, even at night, is even half as disorientating as real IMC.

The first time in 'actual' IMC is what makes people realise how frigging dangerous it is if you are not trained or equipped to fly IMC for real.

All the time in the world under the hood will not prepare you adequately to use an IR in anger - you need to fly actual.

Perhaps this is one of the problems the helicopter world suffers from, too many are trained on non-IFR aircraft but do sim IF under the hood or in a simulator and assume therefore that IMC for real is much easier than it is. perhaps this is why so many are suckered into pushing the limits - because they think, erroneously, that they can handle the environment despite never experiencing it properly.

[Two's in]

Sadly, the circumstances of the crash i.e. the Wedding, is anything but unique. This accident (below) was equally as tragic as it was avoidable, knowing the guy and his experience level didn't change anything.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bride+killed+in+helicopter+crash.-a060427705

[aa777888]

I hope no one is thinking that I would ever attempt such a thing.

That said, while it is easy to understand why actual IMC is more dangerous then being under the hood, why is it more difficult? Serious question, as I've never, and don't desire to, operate a helicopter in actual IMC, so I can't and shouldn't find out for myself. Are you saying it's more difficult for an unpracticed, unrated pilot with inadvertent (or intentionally stupid) entry into IMC? Obviously that's the case. However, what about someone who is appropriately rated and current? One would think there would be little difference between real and simulated in the latter situation.

[newfieboy]

Quote:
'Low time Robbie guy here. If you haven't tried it, it's not nearly as difficult as you think'.

Oh dear....and here lies the problem........:ugh:

[Bell_ringer]

That said, while it is easy to understand why actual IMC is more dangerous then being under the hood, why is it more difficult?

Because you have an instructor next to you in VMC so there is no risk.
Much like being counted into an auto, you are prepared for what's coming. Stress levels are low and reactions are tuned.

[paco]

It's similar to the difference between a practice engine failure (where you pretend you're going to make the field, and the instructor pretends to believe you), and a real one. Having suffered three, I can confirm there is a difference!

Similarly, real IFR, with no-one next to you to drop the occasional hint, is a world away from the foggles.

There is no excuse for that video, or any others of a similar nature.

Phil

[Flying Bull]

I hope no one is thinking that I would ever attempt such a thing.

That said, while it is easy to understand why actual IMC is more dangerous then being under the hood, why is it more difficult? Serious question, as I've never, and don't desire to, operate a helicopter in actual IMC, so I can't and shouldn't find out for myself. Are you saying it's more difficult for an unpracticed, unrated pilot with inadvertent (or intentionally stupid) entry into IMC? Obviously that's the case. However, what about someone who is appropriately rated and current? One would think there would be little difference between real and simulated in the latter situation.

Points said above plus
Having no clues- under a hood - to having lots of distracting clues - white and darker patches passing by in your periphal vision, giving you false impressions of attitudes ....
Thats the point, when the brain starts playing tricks on you and you have to rely on the instruments

Ever had this moving feeling, when a Train on an adjacent track starts to move, while your still standing?

[Armchairflyer]

Not my personal account (no IFR rating), butI found out the difference between simulated IMC and the real thing during instrument training for my CPL(H), which is of course more extended than that for the private pilot's licence. I was wearing foggles, and we had actually erected screens as well. I was quite certain that I could not see anything outside, and I was focusing completely on the instrument panel -- or so I truly believed. After a short period I began to get the sort of spatial disorientation discussed above that is so common in instrument flying; I felt as if I was in a steady right-hand turn, although my instruments told me that I was flying straight and level. It was annoying, but basically not a problem and I just carried on flying.

Then suddenly my perception of turning increased dramatically. I felt as though I was in a very steep turn, going almost round in circles. I began to get dizzy and nauseous, and I found it hard to concentrate. I told my instructor, and I said that if it continued I thought I'd have to stop. But then, just as suddenly, the feelings of turning lessened, and I assured him I was alright. My instructor was more put out than I had expected. '(Name)', he asked me sharply, 'Are you quite sure you can't see anything outside?'

I assured him that I was absolutely certain. I had only been able to see the instruments for the whole of the session ... or so I thought. He then told me that the short period during which I had felt so ill had been the exact time during which we had flown through a small cloud. I had had no idea of this, but it seemed that my body and senses had somehow perceived the difference between simulated and real IMC.

Pilots who have never flown in real cloud are often unaware of the dramatic difference between this and instrument training. Flying in cloud can be totally, completely disorienting. (...)Krasnar, H. Flying helicopters. A companion to the PPL(H), p. 134f.

[nigelh]

I am not ifr certified but have done a couple of hours or so of actual ... Always with an ifr pilot . When you have the knowledge that someone is next to you to keep you out of trouble it is easy !!! Climbing turns , descending turns ... All easy . I think it is because you are relaxed and can use 100% of your brain . When it happens all of a sudden and you don't have that back up you will instantly tend to freeze up , be behind the curve which requires larger inputs . Your available brain capacity will be 50% making simple things like remembering frequencies etc almost impossible . Slow right down and only fly to where you can see !! If you have already pushed too far then LAND . A lot of accidents still happen AFTER a 180 turn . I think every pilot should be forced to watch this harrowing video to hammer the message home . What a truly horrible flight it would have been even if they had arrived in one piece , so very bad PR for helicopters in any scenario . Don't do it !!!!!

[JerryG]

1973. Under the hood. Beefer gently enters a 30 degree roll to the left and then flick rolls to 30 degree right (an over-correction - like we all do when we start to sweat).

Recovery : Believe the instruments ... believe the instruments.

The AI is level but I CANNOT shake the CERTAIN knowledge that we're upside down. Fought it for about 30 seconds then had to hand back the sticks in order to concentrate on not throwing up.

I went on to make a career out of creating films to be shown in motion simulators (as told in my latest book "Film Pilot"). When you set out to deliberately fool the human senses it's remarkable how easy it is to do.

[rotorspeed]

Most of the posts here have, quite understandably, commented on the challenges of flying an R44 on instruments in IMC. Difficult though this would be, this is probably the least risky of this pilot's actions. A bigger risk he was subjecting everyone to was that of hitting something en route. Unless the images are very deceptive, there is no way he was flying at MSA in IMC, or anything like - I'd guess more like a height of around 300ft. Total Russian roulette as to whether he hit obstacles such as power lines, trees, hills, en route.

And most crazy of all was how was he going to land safely? I can't believe for one minute he had any idea of the vis and cloudbase at his destination and had any reasonable let down plan. No IMC let down reduces IAS to zero, so either he was clueless on technique here or the airspeed reduced inadvertently as his scan was beaten by stress as he got close to his site, which he'd quite probably know from GPS indication.

Controlling a helicopter in IMC with straightish and levelish flight is one thing. Having the capacity to consider all the other issues such as safe en route heights (think Wales AS355 accident) and how to perform an IMC let down procedure is quite another.

[gulliBell]

Really, nothing new to be be learned here. That video had a sense of inevitability right through its entirety.

[noflynomore]

One more thing. Shoulder harness. No way anyone survives if someone falls over the stick for whatever reason. Utterly daft not to wear it.

All too vivid evidence of Darwinism in action, such a shame the idiot took others with him.

[patagonia1]

As an IR certified PPL(A) I will confirm the fact that simulated IMC is very different to proper IMC, particularly so when flying solo.
I have only flown a heli a few times under instruction (R44) but am curious if it is even possible for a very competent IR rated heli pilot to safely fly a non certified (for IMC) helicopter in these conditions?

As shown I have seen the youtube hero who made videos doing this, and is now dead, but surely it is russian roulette at the best of times? One thing goes south and the events chain can very quickly build up to catastrophic levels as shown in this tragic video.

Truly terrible - RIP to the people onboard.

[n5296s]

I have only flown a heli a few times under instruction (R44) but am curious if it is even possible for a very competent IR rated heli pilot to safely fly a non certified (for IMC) helicopter in these conditions?

What do you mean by "these conditions"? If you mean at 200 AGL in fog, I don't think anyone can do this "safely". I don't really see why a competent instrument pilot couldn't fly an R44 in IMC under proper IFR conditions, i.e. at a sensible altitude and prepared to fly an appropriate approach at the end of it. Of course it's not legal, and in a heli the excuses for inadvertent VFR into IMC are pretty thin since you can always stop before you enter the cloud.

fwiw... I have about 1900 hours mostly fw, a current IR, and about 150 hours heli time. I was working on my CPL-H (I have a CPL-ASEL) and did the requisite 5 hours under the hood in an R44, mostly at night. I wouldn't be scared at the idea of flying an R44 in IMC, though it's just about impossible to imagine how it could happen.

I hate flying under the hood - it's like some kind of sensory deprivation torture. I much prefer being inside the real thing, where I can look around and see everything inside the aircraft. IMC is scary if you think it is, but quite relaxing if you don't - though it does require 100% concentration to hand fly.

I believe it's the case that you need an autopilot for heli IFR. For sure it's impossible to mess with charts, iPads etc the same way you can fixed wing.

None of which changes the incredible stupidity of the pilot in this case, and the tragedy of killing three innocent people for no reason at all.

[patagonia1]

What do you mean by "these conditions"? If you mean at 200 AGL in fog, I don't think anyone can do this "safely". I don't really see why a competent instrument pilot couldn't fly an R44 in IMC under proper IFR conditions, i.e. at a sensible altitude and prepared to fly an appropriate approach at the end of it. Of course it's not legal, and in a heli the excuses for inadvertent VFR into IMC are pretty thin since you can always stop before you enter the cloud.

fwiw... I have about 1900 hours mostly fw, a current IR, and about 150 hours heli time. I was working on my CPL-H (I have a CPL-ASEL) and did the requisite 5 hours under the hood in an R44, mostly at night. I wouldn't be scared at the idea of flying an R44 in IMC, though it's just about impossible to imagine how it could happen.

I hate flying under the hood - it's like some kind of sensory deprivation torture. I much prefer being inside the real thing, where I can look around and see everything inside the aircraft. IMC is scary if you think it is, but quite relaxing if you don't - though it does require 100% concentration to hand fly.

I believe it's the case that you need an autopilot for heli IFR. For sure it's impossible to mess with charts, iPads etc the same way you can fixed wing.

None of which changes the incredible stupidity of the pilot in this case, and the tragedy of killing three innocent people for no reason at all.

Cheers.
By 'these conditions' I meant solid IMC (I wasn't referring to the low altitude, I meant at a sensible altitude).
I have over 300 hours IMC pic in FW so that is a known quantity to me. In a Heli like an R44 it seems a bad plan all round.

[TIMTS]

I went inadvertent IMC in the Bahamas, over the water, in a 206 with no AI or turn coordinator. We were flying a nurse and patient back to Nassau from a cruise ship, picked from an island. Weather was cavok with the exception of a line of rain ahead of us. It looked like light rain, I could clearly see Nassau, the horizon, even sun in the water on the other side. Being in a hurry I decided to fly through it, and the moment we entered the rain it was like flying into a waterfall...nothing but water to be seen. I transitioned to whatever instruments I had, and tried my best to keep altitude, airspeed and HSI from moving, making small inputs....left cyclic 1-2-3 center....right cyclic 1-2-3...aft cyclic...etc...talking to myself to try to keep calm. All this time it felt like I was sitting in a chair tumbling backwards. I was terrified and I had to fight to keep panic at bay. I made a conscious effort to not move anything but cyclic, and to trust instruments. What really freaked me out was blade slapping sounding like a steep turn, with nothing on the instruments showing a turn. No idea how long it lasted, but we came out into sunshine about 400' lower, and in a 15 degree right turn, slightly nose low.

I'm sure that without my ifr ticket I would have been just another statistic, and would have been another one of those "idiot pilots that killed his passengers", but that rain looked like I would be through it in 2sec tops. Easy to judge with hindsight of course. At present I fly S-76s, frequently IFR, and I'm still very leery of rain.

[SLFMS]

Something that stands out to me in this thread is pretty much unilaterally IFR qualified Rotary Pilots are saying that this is crazy and even if you are qualified in IFR, flying a uncertified aircraft into these conditions will likely have only one ending.
Take heed VFR guys. It scares the hell out of me to hear guys saying I'd never let myself get into that situation however if I did I'd be able to get out of it as once upon a time I flew with a hood on and it wasn't that bad.

2 points worth noting, flying with a hood/screen on is not even close to flying in cloud. It always amazes me how the human body can adapt and interpret unusual data. There are a lot of external ques that are still available to you with a hood and or screen that your brain interprets subconsciously such as shading on the panel, light getting through the hood, temperature changes due to the sun position etc. Night might make this more difficult but it is still not the same.
Once early in my career (with a safety pilot of course) I shut my eyes as tight as I could and tried to control the aircraft. After 4 minutes I decided to stop as I was able to keep the aircraft the right way up at a similar height and direction with oscillations by interpretation of sounds and light plus warmth. Could I do this in a cloud? not a chance!
As Flying bull alluded to random shading and depth changes in cloud can be disorienting especially in the periphery while on instruments.

The other point that has already been made is that keeping the aircraft the right way up is only the first thing you have to do correctly in IMC. There is a reason that aircraft with autopilots but without flight directors require two pilot operation and that is hand flying even stabilised machines narrows the focus and increases pilot workload.
Having your instructor ask you to make a 500fpm climb with a rate one 180 deg turn where your focus is solely on that simple task is not particularly hard.
Accidentally (or in this case what appears to be intentionally) flying IMC where you need to get to a safe height,navigate, communicate, come up with a exit plan is a completely different story.
As a Single Pilot IFR am I happy to do this in a IFR aircraft? Well that would depend on where I was but probably but there is no way I'd intentionally get into the situation this guy was in. In a R44 I'd be very worried and IF I got out alive I'd thank my lucky stars.
I suspect this Pilot and perhaps the company culture has flirted with IMC successfully on previous occasions leading to progressive pushing in worse conditions. Eventually the limit was discovered.

If you are a VFR Pilot and can not see the horizon or the ground, you have gone to far period. Learn a lesson if you survive and do not push it as far next time. Have a plan as well, either descend if that is safe, reverse course and hope to break free of the cloud or climb to a safe height declare a mayday and request assistance from ATC if its in your area. There is a great sound clip where ATC saves a fixed wing guy who flew IMC and went into a spin however he was able to be talked down to a safe landing.

The link with the Russian guy was interesting. Not only is he flying an uncertified aircraft IMC (Which is ironic when one of the statements is "do not exceed your technical equipment") I also suspect he was flying in known icing conditions(It looked pretty cold to me and he was in the cloud). Also I can not remember if the 44 had a Pitot/Static heater but if it doesn't that just adds another level of stupidity to what he was doing.
Clearly this guy was good on the controls and therefore thought he knew what he was doing. Sad to see he took some Pax to the grave with him testing his limits.

Don't go making things up people, its just not worth it.

[GeorgeMandes]

Over 12,000 TT, 1,500 Rotorcraft, ATP MEL, SEL, SES and Rotorcraft. Thousands of hours of FW actual IMC. ATP Rotorcraft check ride done at Bell Helicopter, Alliance.

A skilled and current instrument pilot can fly an unstabilized machine (my experience is Jet Ranger, Long Ranger and 407) on the gauges, but it takes 100 percent of your concentration. What you are unlikely to be able to do is fly the machine on the gauges and navigate, communicate, figure out how to extract yourself. Ideally, you want a crew -- one person to fly, and a second to monitor your flying, tune navigation sources, talk on the radio and figure out how to get you out.

The first time I encountered inadvertent IMC in the helicopter for real, we were headed west over the ocean (Cook Inlet), about 300 AGL, early in the morning, several miles from shore. One moment we were cruising along at 80 knots under a defined ceiling that just showed up off shore, and a second later we were 100 percent IMC. I thought, OK you are an ATP Rotorcraft, get on the gauges and make a level 180 degree turn to reverse course away from the fog and the terrain ahead. It took every bit of my ability to stay calm, execute the level, non-descending turn and fly out of the IMC. Just that, felt like an hour long procedure even though it was probably three minutes, and I was supervised by my wife who was the pilot non-flying (she was also ATP Fixed Wing and Rotorcraft).

I can not imagine any low time pilot putting themselves in this position intentionally, and then trying to continue to destination. Understandable if he crashed trying to reverse course, but this is, unfortunately for his passengers, Darwin at work.

[Hot and Hi]

Quote:
'Low time Robbie guy here. If you haven't tried it, it's not nearly as difficult as you think'.

Oh dear....and here lies the problem........:ugh:
So after all we thank aa777 for his maybe ignorant, but genuine, relevant and also (from the position of a VFR-H pilot) obvious question! As it triggered a host of very competent and eye-opening responses, which reflect the rich experience that only Pprune can offer.

[[email protected]]

I may have mentioned this before, but about 20 years ago, a colleague and I (both Brit mil) took part in a simulator assessment at RAE Bedford which was one of the first studies into helicopter flight in DVE (degraded visual environment).

We flew the same profile each time but with the simulator staff adjusting the control responses (everything from a full ASE/SAS to a completely unstabilised aircraft which was modeled on R22) and then changing the quality of the visual cues.

For two experienced mil pilots (both QHIs) it was a chastening experience to see how quickly our performance degraded as both the stability of the helo and the visual cues went downwards.

The worst was, of course, the R22 in the worst visual cues (still not fully IMC but pretty close) - absolutely 100% concentration just to keep it the right way up but with no capacity for navigation, communication or any other tasks.

Sadly there will still be pilots out there who think they are better, more skillful or just luckier - and they are the same pilots we will be reading about on this forum in the years to come.

Don't do it!

[Hot and Hi]

One more thing. Shoulder harness. No way anyone survives if someone falls over the stick for whatever reason. Utterly daft not to wear it.
A very good point! However, this R44 was only equipped with the standard "automotive style" seat belts. All 4 pax were wearing them.

In a Robinson, the "Five-Point Shoulder Harness System" is an optional extra (additional USD 2,750 on the 2014 price list), and only available for the front seats. The downside of this 5-point harness system is that it requires an additional crossbar to be installed, in parallel to the existing cross bar but some 20 cm higher.

http://rhcservice.com/assets/img/R44-N3108X-04_Interior-Right-Side.png

Not only drastically reduces this the experience of spaciousness of the back seat pax, but more importantly, the new crossbar is in the exact trajectory of the heads of the rear pax, should they be flung forward :ugh: (hence the slight padding visible in the picture above). So you reduce one risk in front, but introduce a new problem in the back! In the balance of probabilities, many owners decide against the 5-point harness system.

Another problem is that here the inertia reels cannot be locked manually (as flying the aircraft requires to be able to lean forward, e.g., to set the DI or to operate the moving map visible in this pic above, and in the mishap flight video).

There have been cases (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/589437-dubai-ec130-accident-report.html#post9640834) where - despite should harness - the initial speed of the pilot's torso moving forward was not fast enough to auto-lock the inertia reels, and the pilot was still pushed onto their cyclic control.

[Twist & Shout]

I think all this talk of IF in various platforms is missing the point.
(I've got enough actual IMC in an unstablzed B206 to understand the challenge and possibilities. Obviously above LSALT, or on a published approach.)

IMHO, this crash possibly started the day the flight was booked.

Many years ago one thing I always used to try and instill in my students was to highlight to customers/passengers that the flight was weather dependent, right from the first planning stage. This can make it a lot easier to cancel the flight, or turn around when required.

In the above example:
Booking the flight – “Dependent on weather”
Day of the flight – “Weather is far from ideal – consider an alternative, or we can continue to assess”
Departing – “Weather is still marginal. We can ‘give it a go’, but there is a chance we will end up back here. Want to try an alternative method, or run the risk of being back here? (Still owing for some flying)”

I believe this reduces the pressure on the pilot to take risks with the weather. Much easier to make the correct decision when the time comes.

A chilling video, which might have a place in every CPL course.

The more experienced pilots turn around, while the less experienced pilots “push on”.
The most experienced pilots are drinking coffee, and wondering why anyone would take off in the current met conditions.

[Bell_ringer]

A jetbanger is vfr only by day or night.
Why would you put yourself intentionally in IMC in one?

[Camp Freddie]

Somebody said on another thread that you should "pre-disappoint" them about the weather, and then if you do get there it's a bonus.

This is my mantra

[noflynomore]

A very good point! However, this R44 was only equipped with the standard "automotive style" seat belts.
I don't think this is permitted in UK. I've certainly never seen a rotorcraft so equipped.

Low time Robbie guy here. If you haven't tried it, it's not nearly as difficult as you think.

I ... did the requisite 5 hours under the hood in an R44, mostly at night. I wouldn't be scared at the idea of flying an R44 in IMC,

Fookinell! Even here, even after watching the video and reading all these posts the message still hasn't got through to some people.

What has to be done to make it stick?

[SASless]

The chances of your continued longevity being negatively influenced by events when it comes to IMC Flight....depends hugely upon the amount of planning that goes on before One enters IMC.

Add in the other filter to the data....that being the amount of Gucci Kit available to you....that is set up and in operation, combined with your actual ability determined by real currency demonstrated by recent experience flying in actual instrument conditions.

Said differently, if you pop into IMC with zero notice, in a non-IFR capable aircraft, you are probably about to render your Organ Donor Card excess to need.


We can have all the Rules, Regulations, Training, and Education in the World....but absent the Judgement to use those inputs....we shall continue to see outcomes just like in the Video....no matter the experience level of the Pilot.

Inadvertent IMC, just like Fog, will straight up kill you.

[Twist & Shout]

A jetbanger is vfr only by day or night.
Why would you put yourself intentionally in IMC in one?

1. Incorrect, I assure you. I know of at least 2 that have been certified for IFR.
2. Even though it was certainly certified for IFR flight, and flying on an IFR plan, I still asked myself the same question. "Why am I doing this?"

[Self Loathing Fright]

Long time stalker, first time poster. Picked this up on another thread. The same thread offered a translation of the conversation between the photographer and pilot which said that she asked him if he'd been to the landing site before and he said that he had...

I am not qualified to comment or pass judgement, but did think this was worth contributing to your discussion - I hope you don't mind!

"The videos on youtube of this tragedy of which there are many show a reporter doing the flight to show what they could've expected upon arrival....power lines right over top of lawn they expected to land on."

Skip to @10:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKpPg4un7Bw

[palacio802]

People still "mixing" things. We should return to basics.

One thing is VMC and IMC classification and another related-but-different thing is VFR and IFR types of flight. VFR flight in VMC conditions and IFR flight in IMC conditions don't represent any problem. VFR in IMC does. Point two: IMC can imply but not always, severe weather. I mean, you can get into IMC because of fog, or dust.

A pilot with proper IFR training can fly ANY helicopter (stabilized or not) equipped with the "five basics" sticking to IFR for a short amount of time without any problem. Of course, he will experience some excess of workload but this won't kill him/her in the short term. That a helicopter is not IFR approved doesn't mean that it's not "flyable" in IMC at a certain moment. For instance, to be IFR certified a helicopter needs an stby att indicator with an independent power source. But in a normal situation you only need one operating att indicator. If you have the five basics, and you have IFR training, you can fly IFR in an emergency situation and give explanations at arrival. It's better losing your licence than losing your life.

If the helicopter is stabilized or not is not conclusive in this matter. If you fly the AS332 or the S76 they have good stabilization systems ¿right? but to be IFR rated in those types you should be capable of flying them in IMC without the stabilizations (i'm thinking about an electrical failure or fire in IMC, flying with the stby att indicator and flashlights to illuminate the instruments... situations that you are required to pass in the simulator). And let me tell you that a Superpuma without SAS is far more unstable and difficult to fly that an"unstabilized" R44. Nothing that a medium IFR trained pilot can not do, though.

What makes the difference here is a pilot trying to maintain VFR while in IMC (but not strong weather, just low visibility). Why? Perhaps he had no IFR training. But the R44 is perfectly flyable in IMC and IFR without strong weather for the short time required to a) make a 180º turn to regain VMC or b) switch to IFR and initiate an emergency climb to the msa and see what happens (most probably he would have met clear skies above the fog, wich means VMC as well).

In sum: it was not the helicopter nor the IMC condition what killed the pilot but his wrong decision due to his lack of training in IFR. IFR training is like a red pill that opens your eyes about the risks of flying in IMC. It's not a question of making "light inputs" in the cyclic stick as read here. In IMC you can suffer from vestibular illusions and vertigoes and end in inverted position without noticing even with those "small inputs". If you are not IFR rated, avoid IMC by all means. If accidentally in IMC, return ASAP to VMC. No matter the helicopter, no matter the stabilization system. BUT, if you have IFR training and your helicopter is IFR certified you have another option which is changing to IFR and keep in IMC (changing route and altitudes, of course). AND in a desperate situation you can fly IFR even a non-IFR-certified helicopter while it is equipped with operating five basics in order to save your life. Full stop.

[evil7]

Blooooody 'tell - what a great IFR landing site 😳

[aa777888]

So after all we thank aa777 for his maybe ignorant, but genuine, relevant and also (from the position of a VFR-H pilot) obvious question! As it triggered a host of very competent and eye-opening responses, which reflect the rich experience that only Pprune can offer.
Always happy to be the wind dummy/whipping boy :}

So now I know that while an R44 won't immediately become uncontrollable in IMC, real IMC and fake IMC are a world apart, and being successful in training is not a good indicator of real world performance in this area.

Not really a worry for me, I am not planning on performing any Stupid Helicopter Tricks, and my personal minimums remain extremely conservative, as they should at my experience level.

[SASless]

1. Incorrect, I assure you. I know of at least 2 that have been certified for IFR.
2. Even though it was certainly certified for IFR flight, and flying on an IFR plan, I still asked myself the same question. "Why am I doing this?"

We flew Huey's IFR for decades.....and I was too young and immortal to even ask Question Two....much less guess at an answer.

[Vertical Freedom]

This imbecile is a murderer in my eyes...pressing on & on when basic Airmanship told him to bug out a long time before. Who gives a toss about commercial pressures, he didn't have a gun to his head & now all are dead. I know 4 Dangerous Pricks like this, 2 are now dead, (killed in weather & their PAX) the other 2 boast about punching through clouds at the end of a valley, nothing short of accidents waiting to happen & it's all to do with Ego.:= Ego is a big killer in this industry, especially in the Mountains :yuk:

If in doubt......bug out, better sooner than when it's too late :*

[flopter]

This imbecile is a murderer in my eyes...pressing on & on when basic Airmanship told him to bug out a long time before. Who gives a toss about commercial pressures, he didn't have a gun to his head & now all are dead. I know 4 Dangerous Pricks like this, 2 are now dead, (killed in weather & their PAX) the other 2 boast about punching through clouds at the end of a valley, nothing short of accidents waiting to happen & it's all to do with Ego.:= Ego is a big killer in this industry, especially in the Mountains :yuk:

If in doubt......bug out, better sooner than when it's too late :*

Thankyou. nuff said.

[TIMTS]

I am repeatedly amused at how most helicopter pilots have this aversion to epaulets/bars, golden or otherwise. Helicopter crashes, pilot wore bars....obvisouly he was a complete imbecile that thought wearing bars made him bulletproof. Really? How many commercial pilots can choose what to wear at work? If you can, awesome...I wish I could. But don't judge people on what they are wearing or are not wearing. Most likely that's one choice this guy didn't have... I have to wear the white shirt, black pants, shiny shoes...and yes...bars. Would I rather wear a polo shirt? Of course. Does it make any difference whatsoever in how I fly? Of course not....

[OvertHawk]

TIMTS

I see you point, and it's a fair one as far as it goes...

However, I think that much of the scorn and mockery that you see directed at people wearing "Bars" in threads like this is driven by the fact that, for one reason or another, they have invariably demonstrated that they are not worthy of them.

Wearing our gold (or silver) bars is a privilege that goes with being the Commander of an aircraft and accepting responsibility for it and for those whom we fly. It's a privilege that most of us worked very hard for and take extremely seriously.

Therefore when we see a video or a photo of some d!ckhe@d doing something stupid, illegal, or dangerous whilst sporting a nice shiny set of bars then we will not take kindly to it.

Just my opinion.

[Flying Bull]

I am repeatedly amused at how most helicopter pilots have this aversion to epaulets/bars, golden or otherwise. Helicopter crashes, pilot wore bars....obvisouly he was a complete imbecile that thought wearing bars made him bulletproof. Really? How many commercial pilots can choose what to wear at work? If you can, awesome...I wish I could. But don't judge people on what they are wearing or are not wearing. Most likely that's one choice this guy didn't have... I have to wear the white shirt, black pants, shiny shoes...and yes...bars. Would I rather wear a polo shirt? Of course. Does it make any difference whatsoever in how I fly? Of course not....

Hi Timts,
you have a point- never the less - experience shows, that more often than seldom, the guys in the little helicopters, who show lack of expertise- step out of their helicopters, wearing shiny bars....
Recall the Formula 1 racings at the Nürnburg Race Course - except for passenger drop off only sloping landing spots.
Had a black trouser and a white shirt as well (no bars so) and enjoyed with my fellow pilots the attempts of the "bar guys", trying to get their Robbie's down.
Only a few of the turbine pilots had bars, but most of the Robbie's....
And it seems, that I'm not the only one charing the same experience....

[NickLappos]

Time to weigh in on this:

1) Airplanes passed through this same Mayhem-by-Air phase in the late 1920's, when crashes due to CFIT were more common than any other cause. Mandatory routes, IFR equippage and mandatory commercial IFR were the result and the accident rate plummeted.
2) Helicopter IFR procedures simply do not exist. I mean routes, approaches and departures from heliports and to heliports. Yes, we get to borrow airplane procedures, but actual helicopter IFR where the trip is done substantially on airways and to helicopter destinations is beyond our regulator's ability to understand.
3) All commercial helicopters should be IFR equipped, and able to file and fly their missions on helicopter airways and down helicopter approaches.
4) Blaming "Training" and "Pilot Error" for CFIT is a waste of time, as accurate as it is. Blame regulators who won't approve helicopter routes and approaches, operators too cheap to equip properly, and pilots who cannot see the forest for the trees.

Look at the new thread I posted for an article I wrote a decade ago about this sad and sickening problem, "Driving on the Planet Mongo"

[GoodGrief]

3) All commercial helicopters should be IFR equipped, and able to file and fly their missions on helicopter airways and down helicopter approaches.

We have the hardest time selling twin hours to our customers as they don't want to pay for it.
Heck, the customers even complain about the higher landing fees of the 407 over the 206L (>2t vs. <2t).
With an L3 in the house the 407 gets flat feet and you want me to step up to IFR certified multi crew twins ?
Right, let's just close the doors...
May I remind everyone that an EASA MEIR cost in excess of $50k ? Good luck on crewing all those commercially operated machines.

[NickLappos]

alphanumeric, you are right, but if they cannot fly IFR on their job, they are effectively Robinsons. The need is for helicopter approaches to heliports, helicopter routes and the equipment.

GoodGrief, you, too, are right, but the cost of one fatal accident would equip the entire commercial fleet in most countries. The deaths do not burden the rate payers, in our lopsided system.

[SASless]

I will stick with Nick on this....as he has the background doing research on the topic....including flying the approaches and using the techniques and procedures he is advocating.

We have seen huge improvements in technology....which can allow us to improve how we operate.

Finding a way....and the Will to make that move forward is the stumbling block.

[ShyTorque]

2) Helicopter IFR procedures simply do not exist. I mean routes, approaches and departures from heliports and to heliports. Yes, we get to borrow airplane procedures, but actual helicopter IFR where the trip is done substantially on airways and to helicopter destinations is beyond our regulator's ability to understand.

In UK, what we really need first is some proper heliports, especially in our major cities.

[rotorspeed]

My goodness, there is a bit too much idealistic nonsense being talked about here I'm afraid.

Nick - first of all of course I have great respect for you but to say all commercial heli ops should be with IFR equipped aircraft and fly on heli airways and approaches is sorry, ridiculous. The cost inflating effects of this would surely wipe out over half the industry - you should know more than me. A vast amount of commercial heli ops can use VFR singles perfectly safely, and at much less cost. It just takes pilots to understand and respect the ops limits - as has to happen with IFR aircraft. And I say this as someone who has only flown IFR twins for the last 15 years plus.

And secondly it is ludicrous to say blame should be laid at regulators for not approving heli approaches and operators for not spending enough to equip helis with IFR kit etc. Frankly I think it is insulting to a whole load of very competent VFR pilots and VFR aircraft operators to consider they should not be doing what they do. And regulators who don't want to suffocate an industry. It is simply a case of pilots, operators and clients understanding and respecting the safe limitations of what the customer can afford. With a VFR single that means not being able to go sometimes. Simple. As with IFR twins - albeit less often.

Nick - competent pilots in airworthy helis don't crash them. We DO need to blame those that are not, and safeguard the cost effectiveness of the VFR heli industry. And the same applies to IFR twins. Most accidents are still caused by pilot error. Those that are not up to it should find another job. Which will protect the reputations of those that are, and competent operators too.

Shy - I normally agree with pretty much all you say, but whilst it would be great to have proper city heliports, even if we do get a few more, it won't make much of a dent in the accident rate - most happen where helicopters usually go - to ad hoc landing sites. It's not going to happen, at least on any scale. The vast majority of us can fly around perfectly safely to such ad hoc sites. It's not that difficult - and that's the virtue of a helicopter. Back to pilot competence......

[TIMTS]

To say that "Helicopter IFR procedures simply do not exist" isn't exactly correct.

There are plenty of Copter Rnav procedures that has nothing at all to do with borrowing airplane procedures.

Here's an example:

COPTER RNAV (GPS) 190 to Southampton Heliport (87N)

I certainly think we need more helicopter IFR procedures, and more support from ATC, there's very little accommodation for helicopters in the system. An example, again, is 87N. There's a time limit on the pad, and no departure procedure at all. So whilst we can get in, we can't always get out. And taking off without a release, even with a flight plan on file, is to chance an "unable" reply from TRACON.

[NickLappos]

It costs too much? Wow, let's take an example:
the US EMS industry uses about 850 helicopters. It has about 8 fatal crashes a year. Hmmmm, that's 1% of the fleet.
If a fatality costs about 10 million per person in total costs, and 3 people are in each helo, then the net cost for that slice of our industry is 8X3X10=240 million dollars. In one year that is $258,000 per aircraft.
Yep, IFR costs a lot, but so does not having IFR.

TIMTS, yes those are dedicated helo approaches, and it is the first crack toward what I am talking about. we just need a lot more, and with mins lower than what they have. And a lot more IFR equipped helos.

[nomorehelosforme]

This is all very sad,

As a passenger I have twice experienced situations where our pilot encountered, cloud, rain and fog. On each of these occasions the pilot simply said we have to fly around/away from this. Locations were St Lucia and Mauritius.

[Vertical Freedom]

thanks flopter, that's what I thought too :8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well said OverHawk, most Pilot's who wear bars are too junior mentally lacking Airmanship enough to be donning the Gold & sadly the vast majority of goof ups are due to piss poor Airmanship yet are wearing the bars? :yuk:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying Bull, exactly :ok:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
great idea Nick, never gonna happen as Good Grief rightly stated. Can't see extreme altitude Mountain rescues ever taking off in twins on an IFR plan :rolleyes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold bars have there place; royalty fanfare, prestigious event, or HeliAirline works. Most Helicopter work is dirty, dusty, grimy, in & our of muddy, dusty, remote H's scrambling about on rough rocky uneven terrain & is no place for a smart white poly shirt with spit polished shoes. Trekking boots, jeans, cotton shirts or a flight suit with a Helmet is a more suitable attire for this work environment. Anyone donning the Gold should have the right skills set, experience & Airmanship to match, I doubt a 200hr Robo Pilot is ready for the responsibility that goes with the bars (yet) :ok:

[PaPaPapamobil]

The IMC does not really frighten me as much as the low RPM horn that came on.... unfortunately i was not able to clearly see the rotor - and engine RPM indicator.
Did he experience an engine failure?

[tartare]

Years ago I flew on a USCG Dauphin down on the ice.
The pilot told me it was fitted with a system called JAWS, or something like that.
I think I remember him saying it could fly the helicopter in a pre-determined search pattern then bring it to auto-hold in a hover.
Is there no autopilot system that can hover a machine hands off in IMC?

EDIT - I note there are things like this (http://genesys-aerosystems.com/product-category/helisas-autopilot-and-stability-augmentation-system) - but I assume it can't be commanded to come to a hands off hover OGE in IMC?

[Flying Bull]

Years ago I flew on a USCG Dauphin down on the ice.
The pilot told me it was fitted with a system called JAWS, or something like that.
I think I remember him saying it could fly the helicopter in a pre-determined search pattern then bring it to auto-hold in a hover.
Is there no autopilot system that can hover a machine hands off in IMC?

All up to the price you're willing to pay.
Nice new machines like the Airbus BK117D2 (H145T2) can have Autohover. Its called. GTC H - ground tractory hover
Depending on your speed and point choosen to hover above it takes its time but will eventuely hover.
But you will have to understand the system fully, without having an altitude in the AP upper modis first, the bird just holds the position- not the height....
But the bird has the "Maria help" button. Twice pushed up, The AP will be activated with present heading, altitude and speed - if below Vy I think it will accelerate to Vy.
So by using "Maria help" and GTC H after that, the bird will come to a stabile hover.
Thereafter you can reduce your altidude by feet by feet until your down.
Luckily we have also terrain and obsticle warning- cause with all the monitors in front and in the center console, where you have menues for everything, the Computer reminds you to look out again approaching ground or towers etc. when you forgot that programming the machine...
Cool for IFR, does all the Holding calculations for you, always intercepts at the right angle and so on.
But that's more mission management- not flying like in the old days.
The systems are cool for what they are designed for, but for pipeline/powerlinecontrol, sightseeing flights, spraying, lifting jobs and so on you don't need it.

[Twist & Shout]

The IMC does not really frighten me as much as the low RPM horn that came on.... unfortunately i was not able to clearly see the rotor - and engine RPM indicator.
Did he experience an engine failure?

You should be scared of the IMC. That's what caused the low RRPM horn.
The Pilot was completely disoriented being devoid the visual cues he had relied on since his first ever flight, and did what almost always happens: responded desperately to inaccurate cues (accelerations and noises were all he had left). He almost certainly "pulled the collective to the roof" to arrest a perceived (and possibly real) decent, or when he glimpsed the world rushing up to kill him.

The thread drift is unreal.

IFR/IMC/Gold bars.
It would have been illegal and dangerous for a qualified IFR Pilot in a capable and certified IFR machine to have been where that foolish Pilot was. (In IMC, below LSALT and not on a published procedure.)

The simple fact is the Pilot chose to push on into totally unsuitable meteorological conditions and killed his pax. Criminal negligence. Ultimate price paid by all on board.

[Mel Effluent]

I have read this thread with great interest. As an ex-military pilot, instrument rating instructor and QHI with nearly 1000 hours 'actual' in helicopters, I think that a few important points have been missed here:

1. Instrument flying proficiency is a perishable skill. If not current, even the most talented and experienced pilot will struggle to accurately fly a helicopter on instruments manually.
2. Instrument flying currency affects capacity directly. I have seen (and been) a pilot who can manage to control the aircraft adequately in IMC, but struggle to communicate (or even speak in some cases) or make sensible decisions.
3. In my view, most helicopter accidents are not caused by lack of flying skill, but poor decision making. Giving a newbie a few hours on instruments in carefully controlled conditions may provide a confidence that is not warranted. I think that it would be a much better use of time and money to put the student in a suitable simulator, let him fly up a valley into IMC and see what happens. Then let him do it again and see if his decision changes.

By the way, for any FW pilot reading this thread, remember that unlike aeroplanes, helicopters are inherently unstable. This makes a huge difference in the effort required to control them (and not just in IMC).

[212man]

The IMC does not really frighten me as much as the low RPM horn that came on.... unfortunately i was not able to clearly see the rotor - and engine RPM indicator.
Did he experience an engine failure?

I do hope you are not actually a licensed helicopter pilot! The mind boggles.....:ugh:

[SuperF]

1. Instrument flying proficiency is a perishable skill. If not current, even the most talented and experienced pilot will struggle to accurately fly a helicopter on instruments manually.
2. Instrument flying currency affects capacity directly. I have seen (and been) a pilot who can manage to control the aircraft adequately in IMC, but struggle to communicate (or even speak in some cases) or make sensible decisions.
3. In my view, most helicopter accidents are not caused by lack of flying skill, but poor decision making. Giving a newbie a few hours on instruments in carefully controlled conditions may provide a confidence that is not warranted. I think that it would be a much better use of time and money to put the student in a suitable simulator, let him fly up a valley into IMC and see what happens. Then let him do it again and see if his decision changes.

Mel, I 100% agree with you. I think that the IMC training that you get is a complete waste of time and money. You either need to do it properly and become and remain current, or else just stay away.

I have said time and again that they need to take the first I away from IIMC when you are talking day, VFR, non wartime flying. There is absolutely no reason to put yourself into IMC, in most cases. I have been close, years ago, never done it since, do not intend to get anywhere near that close to IMC again.

But i fly Day, VFR, non war, so the only reason to try to push on is generally to satisfy a client, or get-home-itis!! neither of those are a reason to die.

Nick, i have to disagree with you. for probably 80-90% of heli ops, which are Day, VFR, non-war and non-EMS, you do not need all those flash dials and gauges. If you have them installed, then one day you may be tempted to use them when you should simply be sitting on the ground waiting for better weather. Plus once you have all that stuff installed, then you have to keep it all in working condition $$$$, and you should really try to keep current in IFR, lots more $$$$$, all for the chance that one day it "MAY" save your live, if you are "STUPID" enough to fly into IMC. Just don't do it. go and land somewhere and have break. Sleep in the helicopter, wait it out.

Plus in most light helicopters, it actually takes away a reasonable amount of payload, which therefore reduces the safety margin on any specific operation, as well as increases the cost of every utility job to the client.

Obviously there are a few occasions when yes you need the ability to keep going, Offshore, Wartime, EMS, or some s#*t hole country where the locals will kill you if you land, are all good reasons to be prepared to keep flying through IMC. But most of us in the civil heli industry aren't flying in those conditions or industries.

[paco]

Mel - all good comments. I would also add that the stabilising surfaces don't kick in until around 45 knots on the average helicopter (very much higher on the Dauphin) so if you want a measure of controllability you have to speed up, which obviously is not part of the thinking process.

As a result, my own rule is that if I don't like what I see at 60 knots, I'm outta there.

Phil

[Flying Binghi]

The IMC does not really frighten me as much as the low RPM horn that came on.... unfortunately i was not able to clearly see the rotor - and engine RPM indicator.
Did he experience an engine failure?

The AH had toppled before the horn went off.

I don't know what ultimately 'got' the pilot though it is educational to watch just how quickly the Artificial Horizon indicator (AH) went from showing roughly straight and level to what I'd say were toppled - About two seconds. It would take longer then two seconds to look at the GPS to work out where yer going.

For the non-IFR pilot next time yer near an aircraft with some IF dials in it have a seat. Look at the AH. Start counting, one thousand and one... look over to the GPS. See what yer want to see. Look back at the AH, ...one thound and two. The AH has toppled 90˚.... what yer going to do? Your VFR fixed wing instructor has given you Five hours on the dials perhaps, if yer lucky - slight negative G barrel roll perhaps and fly out of it... What yer going to do in a Robinson helicopter where negative G gives yer a tail docking.....

One thing that caught me initially, i unthinkingly took the camera view to be the level world. For the first couple of views i were scratching me head as to how the pilot got thrown sideways. After then noting the AH it dawned on me that the pilot likely wern't thrown 'sideways' as such. The helicopter, and camera, were just tumbling. So a reminder for me when on the instruments (fixed wing) to not trust the visual world, just watch the dials.





.

[SASless]

So far the best comment has been "sit on the ground and wait for suitable weather".

That costs little, requires nothing in the way of hi-tech gizmo's.....yields zero risk of an accident..... but requires the use of the Pilot's Brain.....the weak link in this whole problem.

[Scattercat]

IFR/IMC/Gold bars.
It would have been illegal and dangerous for a qualified IFR Pilot in a capable and certified IFR machine to have been where that foolish Pilot was. (In IMC, below LSALT and not on a published procedure.)

The simple fact is the Pilot chose to push on into totally unsuitable meteorological conditions and killed his pax. Criminal negligence. Ultimate price paid by all on board.

I totally agree T & S. All this talk of IFR/IMC, VFR/VMC, Twins, Singles, Single Pilot, Multi crew, Airways, Heli' Approaches etc, etc is missing the point completely. It doesn't matter what aircraft you're operating & in what environment, there are rules, regulations and limitations. Not many aircraft accidents happen when the guy(s) or girl(s) up the front are complying with all the rules (yes there are some exceptions). Fortunately there is usually quite a lot of conservatism built into the rules that govern what we do, so when we find ourselves brushing up against the limits of what's legal, or make an error, we still remain relatively safe. This guy blatantly broke the law .... and sadly died.

[FlimsyFan]

I'm a lowly PPL rated on R44 and R66, but try to be conscientious about understanding the main causes of accidents. That's why I've done the RHC safety course, and diligently read the AAIB reports.

By far the biggest killer in R44s is DVE, and reading some of the reports the deterioration in conditions is almost insidious, as pilots start at good altitude and gradually get pushed down until there's nowhere to go. This is irresponsible, illegal, unforgivable, call it what you want.

There was no insidious build-up of IMC conditions here. He shouldn't have gone, full stop. Totally murderous - there is no excuse for this type of behaviour, and looking at his intended LZ, an R44 in a hot (and high?) climate, 4 up, it hardly appeared a suitable place to land even in good VMC to me. No escape route in any direction, massive HV cables, trees, buildings, very steep descent required. It makes me so angry that he took 3 other lives with him. A disgrace.

This video should be watched by all heli pilots on a regular basis whenever the chance of complacency sets in. I'm stunned that even in full view of this evidence, there is a group of individuals on here (not the pros it seems), who still feel that tackling ILLEGAL flight in IMC is not too frightening.

I had to abandon a flight last week due to unforecasted low cloud, but as I sat in my 120 quid taxi for the completion of my journey, remembered the old adage "Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying, than the other way round'.

I really hope this accident is worthwhile in reminding us ALL that pushing on into IMC (either without the rating, the certified machine or the MSA) is just not an option. No matter what tech you've got in the panel...

FF

[Flying Bull]

Scattercat brings it to the point.

Nothing to do with equipment, routes, rules and so on.
And when looking into things to be changed to reduce accident numbers - we should start at the main problem - the pilot (ego)!

Saying No must become a culture!
Planning with option B a must.

Where you put the figures - depends on area and experience but could be easy done with Radar altimeter or GPS based altitude or even the old Britisch Navy Altitude recognition (if you can sheep legs clearly you´re 200 feet or below)
When cloud brings you below preset figures - no further pressing on, no further cirumnavigate - return or land at the nearest possible spot with no hassle from the authorities playing the game save!
Everybody caught skimming treelines is kindly requested to return his license!
It could be done - but I doubt, that it will become international standard :-(

[Langball]

On the subject of pilots being put under pressure to fly, here in Ireland we had a recent controversy when a senior Government Minister pressurised an Air Corps pilot to fly when fog was forecast. And to compound the matter his representative phoned up the pilot again to 'rub it in' when the fog didn't materialise. Varadkar defends Coveney?s call to pilot over cancelled flight (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/varadkar-defends-coveney-s-call-to-pilot-over-cancelled-flight-1.3144592)
The Minister's excuse was "I'm a 'hands on' type of guy". You couldn't make it up.

[aa777888]

I'm stunned that even in full view of this evidence, there is a group of individuals on here (not the pros it seems), who still feel that tackling ILLEGAL flight in IMC is not too frightening.
Without re-reading all 6 pages, I don't think there was a single post in this topic that espoused that opinion or attitude.

There was some discussion of the relative difficulties of instrument flying various types of helicopters with and without various pieces of equipment present or operating. And there was my own "sub-thread" that, while meaning only to say that you can keep an R44 right side up, turned into a discussion of how real IMC is different than simulated/training. But I don't think there's one poster in this topic who would attempt/condone/emulate or any other thing the behavior that lead to the events described in the first post.

[FlimsyFan]

aa, I think you were maybe one of them

Without re-reading all 6 pages, I don't think there was a single post in this topic that espoused that opinion

The IMC does not really frighten me

Low time Robbie guy here. If you haven't tried it, it's not nearly as difficult as you think.

Not sure whether you're issuing advice, or demonstrating that you're extremely talented, but for the rest of us mere mortals, flight in IMC in an R44 is beyond difficult. It is repeatedly FATAL.

The inference above being that you have tried it... If I misunderstood your post, then I extend my apologies.

FF

[EN48]

Something I copied from this forum years ago and have prominently posted in my hangar:

"The least experienced press on while the more experienced turn back, to meet the most experienced who never took off in the first place"

[aa777888]

aa, I think you were maybe one of them
No, you misunderstood the nature of my post.

Not sure whether you're issuing advice, or demonstrating that you're extremely talented, but for the rest of us mere mortals, flight in IMC in an R44 is beyond difficult. It is repeatedly FATAL.
Definitely not issuing advice! And certainly I do not think I'm extremely talented!

The inference above being that you have tried it... If I misunderstood your post, then I extend my apologies.
Heck no! No way have I tried it. As we've all discussed here, it would be a) stupid and b) illegal.

I originally posted in response to assertions that I took to mean that flying an R44 solely by reference to instruments was impossible. This seemed an unreasonably harsh point of view to me, as I would venture that nearly all civilian-trained instrument rated helicopter pilots in the US obtain their ratings using an R44. Certainly all the ones I personally know have. Heck, some of them have done it in R22s. And even the lowliest of the low, budding commercial pilots, have to demonstrate the ability to do this for 5 hours, as have I. About half of my 5 hours was in a simulator, the other half in an R44. What I was referring to was that I did not find those 5 hours to be exceptionally difficult. Challenging, to be sure, requiring 110% of my attention, but not impossible.

Now, what I was apparently missing, and unable to appreciate since I have never flown a helicopter in real IFR conditions, legally or otherwise, is that hood time, even at night, is not considered nearly the same thing as real IFR in terms of level of difficulty. This, of course, now begs the question of why R22s and R44s are considered acceptable instrument trainers. Surprisingly, the thread has not yet drifted in that direction.

At any rate, no apology necessary. Emotions are running high in this thread.

Thanks,

aa

[ShyTorque]

Shy - I normally agree with pretty much all you say, but whilst it would be great to have proper city heliports, even if we do get a few more, it won't make much of a dent in the accident rate - most happen where helicopters usually go - to ad hoc landing sites. It's not going to happen, at least on any scale. The vast majority of us can fly around perfectly safely to such ad hoc sites. It's not that difficult - and that's the virtue of a helicopter. Back to pilot competence......

Rotorspeed,

I posted to indicate how far we are from the "ideal" situation Nick mentioned, that of being able to fly to and from IFR equipped heliports. We don't even have heliports, or the government will to consider them. In fact the opposite. One only has to look at what is happening to Battersea - London's only licensed heliport - it's gradually being made less safe because it's becoming surrounded by cranes and ever taller high rise buildings. So much for planning permission input with regard to protecting the airspace close to aviation sites.

Obviously without licensed sites (and great numbers of them), we will always have to use ad hoc sites. The ideal is obviously never going to happen. I've used quite a few in my time, btw!

[[email protected]]

I flew in light fog, but was anal in maintaining effective visual reference with the surface.

Step Turn - firstly, what is 'light fog'? There is quite a clear (excuse the pun) meteorological definition of Fog in terms of visibility and it is the same as cloud.

Secondly, just maintaining reference with the ground rather than retaining a visual horizon, is EXACTLY how this guy killed himself and his pax.

If you are looking at the ground instead of ahead then you will inevitably not appreciate how bad the conditions are in terms of visibility and cloudbase - it is like driving fast on a road in fog looking just over the end of the bonnet and convincing yourself that because you can see the road surface, that it is quite safe to continue.

I am afraid that unless you change your attitude, you could well end up as a statistic.

[nigelh]

Crab ... Give it a rest . We all agree on the points made but we don't have to all pretend we always fly in perfect viz !
I am sure he meant poor viz , say 1km by light fog and I am sure he also meant that he kept visual with the ground and horizon. What this pilot did was totally different and illegal whereas flying in " poor viz " is legal but needs to be respected with the pilot knowing minimums and having a plan B . So don't pick a fight , this is not the time .

[FlimsyFan]

aa,

Fair play, good post.

For me what this highlights is a genuine issue with current training methodology.

Seems more emphasis needs placing on giving students an understanding that flying 5 hours under the hood is no substitute for genuine IMC. PPLs who complete a rate 1, 180 degree turn wearing foggles ought to understand this does not give licence to go IMC under any circumstances.

At least if more pilots see that reality through this video, the accident wasn't totally in vain.

Keep out of the white stuff, and happy flying 🚁


FF

[[email protected]]

Nigel - not picking a fight but you read his post one way and I read it another.

If the vis is less than 1km due to suspended water droplets you are either in fog or cloud and neither is suitable for VFR flight - no matter how good you think you are.

The guy in the accident started out in what he considered to be acceptable vis and wasn't revising his weather decision because he was looking down at the ground or in at the GPS - so when it got too bad and he lost ground contact he was stuffed.

[noflynomore]

"Five hours under the hood"

Five hours!!!

Some consider this sufficient for what, exactly? A CPL in the USA? Bejasus! God help anyone who falls into the hands of a skygod with that sort of "qualification" and thinks he can use it! It barely equips him to undergo a type rating and IR to fly as P2 IMC with a real pilot. Even as such he'd be a liability for some time.

5 hrs, Isn't that about what a UK PPL gets - in order to teach him never to go near IMC and, with luck, survive it if he gets out of it pdq?

[aa777888]

Yes, sir, 5 whole hours for a CPL-H in the USA. And all of it can be in a simulator. And ZERO hours for a PPL-H. Under Part 61 of the FARs.

I'm pretty sure nobody with a one of those ratings in the USA thinks they are qualified to operate a helicopter in IMC. I've never met one that did, anyhow. It's clearly the barest of emergency skills, and a lesson in what not to do.

Seriously, who would even think that someone with only 5 hours of hood time would intentionally fly into IMC? Why would anyone think that? I don't believe even those who get themselves and possibly others killed think that. Surely it is, thankfully, the rarest of the rare idiot who does something like this intentionally.

[Jelico]

Scary video. Reading this thread makes it seem like people think this guy happily flew into IMC and tried to fly to his destination on instruments. Seems more likely he felt he could sneak through some low clag on his way to the drop off, maybe even through what looks like a hole in the weather that you can see as in the video. Scud running, and the hole closed around him. I doubt you will find a commercial pilot anywhere in the world with a few hours under their belt that can honestly say they have never consciously snuck under a but of crappy weather and busted a few minimums in doing so. I don't think this pilot even looked at his AH the whole flight, let alone when he needed it. A textbook IIMC event with a textbook out come. The lesson for me from this tragedy is just how easy it can be going from happily stooging through a bit of murkey weather, to a complete IMC mess. Certainly gave me a fright! As to the discussions around the differences between an "unstabilized" R44 flying on instruments. It doesn't matter what you are in if you are VFR and the weather gets worse - land the bloody thing. I recently spent a few hours on the ground in a paddock, with a fully IFR equipped (SAS, Autopilot etc) A109 grand as the weather dropped below an acceptable level (I am not IFR trained). An embarrassing phone call to the boss, but that was about it. Made some nice friends with the locals, and flew the last 10 mins home a few hours later when the front went through.

[Pozidrive]

Three shiny gold bars... priceless 😢


Yes, if he'd had four he'd have been OK.

[Pozidrive]

In UK, what we really need first is some proper heliports, especially in our major cities.


Why? In the UK isn't train or car near enough as quick from A to B?

[MarcK]

from Flanders and Swann: "If God had intended us to fly, He would never have given us the railways."

[n5296s]

Yes, sir, 5 whole hours for a CPL-H in the USA.
Interesting question what useful purpose is this meant to serve... as many people have said, if that's ALL the hood/IMC experience you have, it's not going to get you very far (about your current altitude, downwards). I enjoyed doing my 5 hours (don't have a CPL-H but I was well on the way to one). But I do have a fixed wing IR and a reasonable amount of experience both in actual and under the hood, so the basic idea of doing what the instruments say is already ingrained.

So there are two possible outcomes from the 5 hours: (a) s**t, that was scary, for sure I'm never going to try and do that (b) cool, that's pretty easy, clouds here we come, nobody will know about it. (a) is evidently preferable to (b) but not certain.

The one surprising thing for me in the R44 was how you have to watch the AI like a hawk, really doing the textbook AI-X-AI-Y-AI-Z-... scan. In my 182 you can pretty much forget about the AI, the instructor I used to fly with for instrument currency would "fail" it in the first 15 minutes of every flight so I got used to flying without it. Doesn't work in the heli (at least not the R44).

Before someone jumps down my throat (again), no, I don't plan on flying the heli into IMC, still less publishing the result on youtube. But I do still think that someone with plenty of heli IMC experience, including hand flying, AND some R44 hood time, ought to be able to (hand) fly an R44 in IMC. I also think that such a person would have enough good sense not to try it. I would be very happy to try it in a faithful R44 sim though, if such a thing exists.

[nomorehelosforme]

Simple question, how many professional pilots with potential pax on board either cancel flights due to bad weather or divert/return if encountering it?

Who determines the decision, pilot or company?

[Flying Binghi]

Scary video...
...I don't think this pilot even looked at his AH the whole flight, let alone when he needed it...

I would disagree Jelico. Near the end of the flight the occasional view you get of the pilot he appears to be sat fairly rigid with head slightly back and apparently looking at the instruments. I would imagine if the pilot were using the ground as a reference then his head would be moving around more trying to see that 'out'.

Having a look at the video. The best I can make out through my little iPad screen and $10 store bought reading glasses, and reading the assessment of others in this thread, is the R44 went nose down with a speed increase and then were recovered to a slow forward speed with associated blade noise. Then we have a view of a stabilised AH suggesting the pilot had stabilised his scan. Then the AH topples and.....

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=248_1499297836


Of interest, you don't need to be in the fog/cloud to get a similar 'experiance'. Many years ago i were mustering in a 300 with a fog layer just above the trees and an occasional drizel of rain. No dramas as plan A were to just land where i were in the paddock if the fog lowered. There i were just sitting above a small tree having a look around and whoosh... a cascading spiral of white mist at me rotor tips all around the chopper. The mist had a screw thread appearance for the first few feet below the tips. Didn't last long though it were itimitant so i transitioned my view straight down for reference. as soon as i moved the chopper the effect went away. For the new players to the game it is something to keep in mind.






.

[gulliBell]

...The one surprising thing for me in the R44 was how you have to watch the AI like a hawk, really doing the textbook AI-X-AI-Y-AI-Z-... scan....

You shouldn't have to. What you need as an absolute minimum in such a dire situation is an aid to track towards (or away from), speed indication (ASI + VSI), and power indication. An IFR trained pilot should be able to fly all day like that, climb and descend, no AH required, but once you need to turn then you have absolutely nothing left in your favor. The really tricky part, apart from not flying into something, is getting out of the cloud. For that you need a procedure, and proper equipment, and if you had both right from the beginning, and the proper training and qualifications to use them, then you shouldn't have found yourself in such a sticky situation in the first place.

I agree 100% on the sentiment here, the accident pilot was totally responsible for the inevitable outcome. You just can't be doing that sort of thing in any helicopter, let alone a Robinson. Just don't even attempt your hand at it, it's just pointless doing so. Keep out of clouds in VFR helicopters.

[patagonia1]

You shouldn't have to. What you need as an absolute minimum in such a dire situation is an aid to track towards (or away from), speed indication (ASI + VSI), and power indication. An IFR trained pilot should be able to fly all day like that, climb and descend, no AH required, but once you need to turn then you have absolutely nothing left in your favor. The really tricky part, apart from not flying into something, is getting out of the cloud. For that you need a procedure, and proper equipment, and if you had both right from the beginning, and the proper training and qualifications to use them, then you shouldn't have found yourself in such a sticky situation in the first place.

I agree 100% on the sentiment here, the accident pilot was totally responsible for the inevitable outcome. You just can't be doing that sort of thing in any helicopter, let alone a Robinson. Just don't even attempt your hand at it, it's just pointless doing so. Keep out of clouds in VFR helicopters.

You wouldn't need an AI as an IFR heli pilot to fly straight and level or climb all day in solid IMC?
I doubt that very much. From a FW perspective I rely on the AI or Turn Co-ordinator in the event of AI failure in IMC with no autopilot (eg hand flying).

Complete lack of horizon makes me solely reliant on instruments, and the AI is a key one for me at least.

If a pilot gets disoriented even in the slightest he has no AI as reference to verify he is level..

[Flying Binghi]

You wouldn't need an AI as an IFR heli pilot to fly straight and level or climb all day in solid IMC?
I doubt that very much. From a FW perspective I rely on the AI or Turn Co-ordinator in the event of AI failure in IMC with no autopilot (eg hand flying).

Complete lack of horizon makes me solely reliant on instruments, and the AI is a key one for me at least.

If a pilot gets disoriented even in the slightest he has no AI as reference to verify he is level..

I agree. Though i think the demo video linked earlier in the thread of that Russian chap covering up his main attitude instruments answered what is possible in a R44. What i note is different between the demo vid and the thread subject incident is the amount of turbulence the accident pilot encountered. IMHO, for the situation and pilot skills the AH (AI) were one of two main instruments - i.e., Hold it level and keep the rotor in the green...





.

[FlimsyFan]

that Russian chap covering up his main attitude instruments answered what is possible in a R44.

.

Obviously a very talented pilot. However, would have been a lot better to divert, like the other ships in the formation.

http://www.heliweb.com/adventurer-round-world-pilot-michael-farikh-killed-crash-russia/

[patagonia1]

I agree. Though i think the demo video linked earlier in the thread of that Russian chap covering up his main attitude instruments answered what is possible in a R44. What i note is different between the demo vid and the thread subject incident is the amount of turbulence the accident pilot encountered. IMHO, for the situation and pilot skills the AH (AI) were one of two main instruments - i.e., Hold it level and keep the rotor in the green...
.

I kept getting glimpses of terrain in the Farikh videos. Not doubting his skills kept him safe on that day, but now he's dead from pushing the limit's so it's certainly not a strategy anyone should rely on!

[212man]

I agree. Though i think the demo video linked earlier in the thread of that Russian chap covering up his main attitude instruments answered what is possible in a R44. What i note is different between the demo vid and the thread subject incident is the amount of turbulence the accident pilot encountered. IMHO, for the situation and pilot skills the AH (AI) were one of two main instruments - i.e., Hold it level and keep the rotor in the green...





.
I don't think it's turbulence - I think it's the unusual attitudes and g forces he's created.

[[email protected]]

Obviously a very talented pilot. No, a lucky pilot whose luck ran out.

Human physiology means you need a reference to the horizon in order to orientate yourself - otherwise you are at the mercy of conflicting signals from the proprioceptive sensors (muscles, nerves etc - seat of the pants) and your semi-circular canals in the inner ears. no-one has a built in gyro but some are more prone to disorientation than others.

You might manage to stay straight and level for a short while in IMC without an AI (in an unstabilised helicopter) but any disturbance will eventually degrade your perception of the world and your position in space - then you will make bigger control inputs, usually in opposite directions, as your brain tries to establish a feedback loop. I believe that is what happened in the crash video where he goes from nose-down to nose-up, generating G, losing airspeed and eventually losing control totally.

[Flying Binghi]

I don't think it's turbulence - I think it's the unusual attitudes and g forces he's created.

Yep, i got that wrong.

Looking again at the short video i noted the headset volume control units on the headset cables are hanging from the ceiling and are 'in shot' for most of the vid. Very little if any movement at all. The turbulence i perceived were from the hand held camera.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=248_1499297836




.

[flopter]

No, a lucky pilot whose luck ran out.

Human physiology means you need a reference to the horizon in order to orientate yourself - otherwise you are at the mercy of conflicting signals from the proprioceptive sensors (muscles, nerves etc - seat of the pants) and your semi-circular canals in the inner ears. no-one has a built in gyro but some are more prone to disorientation than others.

You might manage to stay straight and level for a short while in IMC without an AI (in an unstabilised helicopter) but any disturbance will eventually degrade your perception of the world and your position in space - then you will make bigger control inputs, usually in opposite directions, as your brain tries to establish a feedback loop. I believe that is what happened in the crash video where he goes from nose-down to nose-up, generating G, losing airspeed and eventually losing control totally.

Yes!. Finally some Common Sense amongst all the rubbish speculation..IMC is Deadly..Stay out of it..nuff said

[Paul Cantrell]

Low time Robbie guy here. If you haven't tried it, it's not nearly as difficult as you think. For a commercial rating you need 5 hours under the hood or in an approved simulator. I did over half my time in an R44, at night just to minimize potential external cues. While more difficult than in a fixed wing, I did not by any means find it impossible, and was able to fly around reasonably well at the direction of my instructor, even shooting a couple of ersatz approaches (not ILS).

aa777888 - Strongly agree with crab - it's simply not the same thing. Don't think we're all picking on you, it's just this conversation resonates with a lot of us.

It's amazing how good your brain is at picking up little cues that you don't realize you're seeing. I've been flying and teaching in Robbies and Bells for 30 years and it's really scary to hear a low time guy say what you just said. In fact, I've complained that the 5 hours of IFR training for the commercial is counter productive for just this reason. What you should be learning is that if you go inadvertent IMC (especially at night) in a VFR helicopter... chances are very good that you are not going to survive the encounter. At night you probably have 15 seconds before you lose control. The 5 hours of hood training is just enough to make people overconfident. For my first 10 years of flying R22s I just assumed that if I went IMC I would die. It kept me safe, thinking that way.

I was training someone in an R44 for the commercial not too long ago and by the end of the 5 hours of hood time he was getting pretty cocky. I kept telling him that actual IMC isn't at all the same. You could tell he was pretty skeptical. I took him out over the water for an ILS and he was all over the sky as soon as he crossed the beach. It's actually pretty darn uncomfortable in a teetering system to be all over the sky (I'm thinking low gee) the way we were that day. It's not that he was trying to cheat... you just can't help it. Your brain is amazing at finding cues to what the aircraft is doing when you're wearing a hood.

Other story is the first time I flew IMC. I had been a CFII for a couple years, probably had a couple hundred hours of hood time, and I went out with my buddy in the SPIFR B206L3 I still fly. I think I gave him a pretty bad scare. For the first 10 minutes it was all I could do to keep the dirty side down. After a few minutes he says "how about we turn the autopilot on for a few minutes?". I gratefully did. I was shocked at how different it was from flying under the hood.

So, like crab says, don't think that when you enter IMC by mistake it's going to be anything like when you're under the hood (even at night). And, with a VFR R44 like the pilot in this video was flying, the attitude indicator looks tiny because it's further away than with an IFR panel. And, like several people said, there's a huge difference between going IMC as planned vs by mistake.

I only watched the short video, and of course I knew it was going to be bad but when the camera gave the out-the-front view, like someone else said: I knew they were toast.

Someone else mentioned the stress of doing weddings. Whenever I do weddings or Santa deliveries, I require they have a car standing by. That way I can always abort and they can still get to the function, even if a few minutes late. Takes a lot of stress off the decision making when you can say "hey, the worst case scenario is that they just take the limo".

[Paul Cantrell]

fwiw... I have about 1900 hours mostly fw, a current IR, and about 150 hours heli time. I was working on my CPL-H (I have a CPL-ASEL) and did the requisite 5 hours under the hood in an R44, mostly at night. I wouldn't be scared at the idea of flying an R44 in IMC, though it's just about impossible to imagine how it could happen.

I agree that with proper planning you should be able to avoid it. Night is the only case where it becomes more likely. A buddy suddenly found himself inside a cloud at night (twice) because in the dark he couldn't see the cloud ahead of him (and Flight Service had forecast a higher ceiling). First indication was the strobe flashing off the inside of the cloud.

I believe it's the case that you need an autopilot for heli IFR. For sure it's impossible to mess with charts, iPads etc the same way you can fixed wing.

The Bell 222 was certified for single pilot IFR without an autopilot. A local company (Digital Equipment Corporation) had one and several of their pilots told me they hated flying IMC in that machine because it was so difficult to look at a chart, etc. As far as I know that's the only western helicopter certified Single Pilot IFR without an autopilot. I'm sure quite a few were certified that way with a crew of two.

One friend who was a LOH pilot, designated examiner and finally FAA examiner told me that if I lost the autopilot while IMC I should declare an emergency and have ATC read me the approach plate rather than stop the scan (and risk vertigo by looking down at the plate). In fact, lots of times when I'm IMC I hand fly for the practice, and I actually can use ForeFlight while flying, but I don't think I'd want to have to do it on a dark and stormy turbulent flight... it's nice to have the autopilot (but I'd actually rather have a second pilot!).

As for an experienced fixed wing IFR pilot dealing with inadvertent IMC, the main differences are that the helicopter doesn't have a trim airspeed so it's more work maintaining pitch, and the aircraft is much more responsive - offhand I would say that your scan needs to be 3-5 times faster in the helicopter than in the airplane, depending on the model of helicopter. Certainly an R44 would be a handful, and an R22... I wouldn't even want to think about it. (they're nimble to a fault). They have all the characteristics that make for a fun VFR machine and a lousy IFR machine - sort of like learning instruments in a Pitts Special, or Extra or something with very responsive controls, and not a lot of stability.

[Paul Cantrell]

Time to weigh in on this:

3) All commercial helicopters should be IFR equipped, and able to file and fly their missions on helicopter airways and down helicopter approaches.


Nick,

I strongly agree. Part of the problem is the FAA. I recently read a good article about why a bunch of single engine helicopters were certified for IFR (like the SPIFR B206L3 I fly) back in the 80's, but not now. The gist of the article was that the FAA upped the requirements for instrumentation and mechanical failure robustness in an attempt to make things safer, and instead halted the production of IFR singles.

There is no question in my mind that if the FAA relaxed some regs so that the aircraft didn't need to be triple redundant (or whatever), and instead would allow a simple digital autopilot equipped single like the R44, B206, B505 to be certified IFR we would be much safer than we are now. And yes, some IFR routes and procedures and LZs like you described in your article would be nice too! (and at least we're finally, with WAAS, in a position to have privately certified IFR approaches - I know of at least one guy who has one to his house).

One could make an argument that with a couple AHRS on board, a G500H style panel, and a couple iPads running ForeFlight with synthetic vision, an R44 with an autopilot could be as safe as any other single engine IFR helicopter and would be a hell of a lot safer than flying VFR in marginal conditions.

Now and again there are rumors that Bell might certify the 407GX, and maybe the 505. I hope they do! Robinson, in my opinion, will never try for IFR certification of any of their helicopters. I hope I get proved wrong someday :-(

[Paul Cantrell]

I have read this thread with great interest. As an ex-military pilot, instrument rating instructor and QHI with nearly 1000 hours 'actual' in helicopters, I think that a few important points have been missed here:

1. Instrument flying proficiency is a perishable skill. If not current, even the most talented and experienced pilot will struggle to accurately fly a helicopter on instruments manually.


Thanks for bringing this up - I meant to mention this when I was talking about how the 5 hours of hood training for the commercial license can make people overconfident.

We generally don't do much if any IMC flying during the winter (in Boston) because of ice. So, each spring we need to do some work to get current again. In just 3 months I'm rusty enough that I wouldn't launch IMC without a refresher.

If I'm rusty after 3 months, imagine a VFR commercial pilot who got 5 hours of hood time several years ago when he was trained!

[noflynomore]

If I'm rusty after 3 months, imagine a VFR commercial pilot who got 5 hours of hood time several years ago when he was trained!

Amen to that!

[SASless]

Robinson, in my opinion, will never try for IFR certification of any of their helicopters.

That risk alone makes me want another Triple Cheeseburger, double order of Fries, and a Big Gulp Soft Drink with a Chocolate Fudge Sundae for dessert.

If I cannot fit through the door I never face that eventuality!

IMC in a Robbie.....shudder the thought!

[n5296s]

A local company (Digital Equipment Corporation) had one
Didn't know that. I flew quite a bit (as pax) in the DEC fleet in the 70s and 80s and I thought they were all 206s. (DEC had about a dozen helis which flew scheduled flights between the various New England plants. They were available to all employees, even lowly new graduate hires like me, with no charge to your department. Amazing, huh?)
or Extra or something
Now there's a thought. A local FBO has an Extra with full IFR instruments, maybe I should get some hood time in it!
If I'm rusty after 3 months, imagine a VFR commercial pilot who got 5 hours of hood time several years ago when he was trained!
Couldn't agree more. I do enough (airplane) IFR (hood, and actual when I can) to stay proficient, but even so I am NEVER satisfied with my performance - I always feel I need to do about three times as much.

[FlimsyFan]

IMC in a Robbie.....shudder the thought!

I'm not taking the p15s, but why would it be so much worse than, say a 505?

The R66 with HeliSAS works really well hooked up to a G500. Im just interested to see why the idea is so abhorrent (standard Robbie bashing aside).

FF

[[email protected]]

FF - that heliSAS is what would make all the difference. It is the idea of IMC in an unstabilised helicopter for a pilot who has never seen the inside of a real cloud before that is so abhorrent.

[aa777888]

aa777888 - Strongly agree with crab - it's simply not the same thing. Don't think we're all picking on you, it's just this conversation resonates with a lot of us.

It's amazing how good your brain is at picking up little cues that you don't realize you're seeing. I've been flying and teaching in Robbies and Bells for 30 years and it's really scary to hear a low time guy say what you just said.
Paul--it's amazing that after all my follow up posts that anyone would think that I would intentionally fly into IMC. I never meant to imply that in any way. There must be a phenomenal number of low timers that do that, given the automatic and emotional responses to my initial post. My primary purpose in posting was simply to point out that an R44 is not uncontrollable on instruments, as some seemed to believe. I should hope that all of my follow up posts have made that clear. The replies made it equally clear that hood time didn't count as "with reference only to instruments". That was somewhat of a revelation.

I will say that I did not have huge difficulty with the simulator, either. But of course that is NO cues (not a motion simulator), not CONFLICTING cues. I would love to try the over water trick, just to experience it.

[[email protected]]

aa777888 - if you are going to try the overwater experience, make sure you have someone with you as a safety pilot. If you really want to mess with your mind, find a sandy beach with breaking waves and the tide fully out and do your turns over the shoreline - your constantly changing visual cues (even from under the hood) will make it rather challenging.

They say a peek is worth a thousand scans - but only if what you see when you peek is useful (like the horizon).

[Paul Cantrell]

Paul--it's amazing that after all my follow up posts that anyone would think that I would intentionally fly into IMC. I never meant to imply that in any way. There must be a phenomenal number of low timers that do that, given the automatic and emotional responses to my initial post. My primary purpose in posting was simply to point out that an R44 is not uncontrollable on instruments, as some seemed to believe. I should hope that all of my follow up posts have made that clear. The replies made it equally clear that hood time didn't count as "with reference only to instruments". That was somewhat of a revelation.

aa777888,

I hope you don't think I was implying that you would intentionally fly into IMC. I was just reacting to the statement about "it's not nearly as difficult as you think". I'm also guilty of responding before reading all 6 pages (at the time) of this thread, so my reply was also somewhat redundant with what some of the other people said.

In any case, you are certainly right that there were a lot of emotional responses, and yeah, because we've seen far too many fatal IMC encounters over the years.

crab - They say a peek is worth a thousand scans - but only if what you see when you peek is useful (like the horizon).

I hadn't heard that before, but it's certainly true. I was flying the ILS into KHVN (New Haven Connecticut) which brings you in over the water (and directly over what used to be my uncle's farm). I was under the hood, and scanning the instruments, but a little tiny bit of the chin bubble was visible out of the corner of my eye, and the waves going by at an odd angle down by my feet was inducing all kinds of vertigo effects. It's pretty hard to ignore something like that, even though it's way out of the center of your vision.

In any case aa777888, hope you don't feel too picked on, and thanks for starting a very interesting thread-within-a-thread :D

[Droopystop]

A few thoughts...... Flight in IMC is a degradable skill and therefore there's a big difference to being qualified and being competent.

I think it was JAA that mandated IMC appreciation for the ppl. A one off 2? Hour segment of the ppl which either scares the poo out of you 👍 or shows it can be done 👎. I wonder what the stats say regarding loss of control in IMC after the introduction of this. In my ppl days most aircraft I flew didn't have an AI. IMC was not an option. At all. I wonder if we should go back to VMC only aircraft not having an AI and stop teaching it for the ppl.

[Hughes500]

Droopy

You are indeed correct JAA upped the 40 hour ppl course to 45 hours with 5 hours of instrument appreciation. For the skills test have to make a 180 degree turn +/- 200 ft. This still applies for EASA but do not have to do 5 hours.
Interestingly never really worked out why the 180 degree turn. Most inadvertent IMC is climbing up into it, so what is the point go having to do a 180 degree turn, you are still in it !!!!

[Flying Binghi]

...In my ppl days most aircraft I flew didn't have an AI. IMC was not an option. At all. I wonder if we should go back to VMC only aircraft not having an AI and stop teaching it for the ppl.

Here in Australia a NGT VFR rated helicopter is required to have basic IF instruments, i.e. The old six pack panel of AH, DG, etc, or modern equivalent. Sufficient dials to get out of inadvertent IF conditions.

Edit to add: IFR Radio or GPS Nav equipment required as well.





.

[Droopystop]

The other aspect that led to this disaster was flying over hostile terrain. Perhaps we are lucky in Europe in that SE flights can mostly be conducted such that a forced landing is always an option and in many if not all cases a legal requirement. Generally we think of a forced landing as being due to an engine failure but of course this case illustrates another reason for having the field to land in option. I don't know if this flight was commercial or a ppl doing it as a favour for a mate. Either way a salutary message - SE over hostile terrain is your first hole in the cheese

[Droopystop]

Here in Australia a NGT VFR rated helicopter is required to have basic IF instruments, i.e. The old six pack panel of AH, DG, etc, or modern equivalent. Sufficient dials to get out of inadvertent IF conditions.

Edit to add: IFR Radio or GPS Nav equipment required as well.





.

But that's my point. The aircraft is equipped but the pilot may not be current in IMC flight. But having the instruments might just "encourage" the unwary pilot to push on a little bit further than they might have without them.

[[email protected]]

Interestingly never really worked out why the 180 degree turn. Most inadvertent IMC is climbing up into it, so what is the point go having to do a 180 degree turn, you are still in it !!!!
I was called out on SAR from Chivenor a good few years ago to search for a missing Cessna that had left Swansea en route to Halfpenny Green or Shobdon in less than perfect weather.

We picked up their 121.5 beacon and homed to it - hover taxing up the side of a wooded hill in the Neath valley in cloud.

Having got to the top, there was slight break in the cloud and in the direction of the beacon signal there was a chap waving to us from the corner of a wood.

We landed on and discovered that he was the pilot and he and his pax were unhurt.

His Cessna was parked at 45 degrees nose down in the middle of the wood.

It turned out he had inadvertently entered cloud in the valley and attempted a 180 turn on instruments.

Fortunately, his IF skills were poor, he climbed (missing the top of the hill) lost speed and stalled the aircraft into the trees which cushioned the impact!

If he had been practised at IF he probably would have speared into the side of the hill at 90 kts.

[chopjock]

Droopy

Either way a salutary message - SE over hostile terrain is your first hole in the cheese

Only a small hole though, most crashes are through pilot error, not engine failure!

[John R81]

I thought the whole of Scotland, and much of N England (Pennines, Cumbria, etc) were defined as hostile terrain. If so, then I am frequently SE over hostile terrain.


And I will be SE over hostile terrain this Friday, and possibly again on Sunday.


Not sure I would class this as "one of the Swiss-cheese holes".

[Nubian]

SE over hostile terrain is your first hole in the cheese

This is an ''established truth'' regarding accidents, and I wonder if there is a statistic out there that show the rate of prevented accidents due to having 2 engines, i.e. engine failure with a successful RTB or diversion on single engine instead of having a forced landing or an accident.

Not arguing that 2 engines is a completely waste, but there are quite a few accidents involving twins where the cause is pilot error.... and ironically quite a few in the UK which comes across as the most strict place to fly in Europe. The last one happened not too long ago....

You can argue that having a twin is potentially a greater risk as certain pilots may push out in even worse weather due to the equipment onboard, but not really able to use it. I can think of 3 such accidents with high profile in the UK alone, and I'm sure you know them well.


This is in any case a thread-drift, as there was nothing wrong with the engine in this sorry video!

[newfieboy]

If we couldn't fly SE over hostile environments, we would get bugger all done in Canada.

[Bell_ringer]

How many accidents actually occur due to engine failures in a light turbine and of that over tough terrain?
Doesn't matter what you fly, there are plenty of single points of failure in every machine, not the least of those sit in the pointy end.

[Droopystop]

Ok my mistake regarding hostile terrain. There are plenty of parts of N England and most of Scotland where one could land instead of going IMC. I appreciate that other parts of heavily forested/ desert/polar world won't have that option. When I referred to forced landing I acknowledged that a forced landing might be due to weather and not an engine failure. Im not saying that SE flight where you couldn't land en route shouldn't happen, just that that's one loses that option and therefore cannot be used as mitigation for inadvertently going IMC.

[ShyTorque]

All terrain is hostile if you fly into it, as appears to have been the case here.

[Thomas coupling]

Ferzakerly!